There is a pretty significant problem with this reasoning: what market are you referring to? Most Americans have zero, one, or two broadband ISPs they can receive service from. In most cases where there is any choice, it is between cable and DSL, which have very different technical characteristics and are not always interchangeable.

I could get behind a market-based approach if there was some kind of proposal to foster a market. What happened to the line-sharing requirements that gave us competition among DSL services in the late 90s? That was a market-based solution and it worked well; that approach continues to work well in other countries.

Instead, the current approach is to leave the monopolies and duopolies in place, and to do nothing to reduce barriers to entry for competing services or otherwise foster a competitive market.

This is how populism works, and it's only going to get worse.

2) The Republican deregulatory ideal (if it works at all) only works if competition exists. It doesn't. The market can only have a chance to work if it exists.

Internet only works when neutral.

Here is your argument: Regulation bad - Deregulation good. Don't you think that's a bit overly simplistic?

What part of this are you missing? Either you have the Internet with protections in place or simply you don't have an Internet at all. Your world view is AOL and Compuserv. That's what a world without NN looks like.

IF there was competition. However, the ISPs have sought to end that.

Mortgage industry was self-regulated and politicians just balled out the bad actors.

It is about "finding" simple and reliable regulations, since there is no true "etched in stone" regulations.

Regulations have a shifting baseline. Say 100 fish are in a lake. Regulate that only 20 maybe harvest a year. This goes on for 10 years and in the 11th they are all gone. Write once regulations do not account for changes in the environment / market environment.

http://thehill.com/policy/technology/364528-poll-83-percent-...